From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Basic Recovery Control functions for use in Hot Standby. Pause, |
Date: | 2011-03-18 05:13:13 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTim8wzgiVfSUjK=JT58ZGngRELLJq=x7KzLkVcQo@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Sorry, I've not been able to understand the point well yet. We should
>> just use elog(ERROR) instead? But since ERROR in startup process
>> is treated as FATAL, I'm not sure whether it's worth using ERROR
>> instead. Or you meant another things?
>
> Yeah, I think he's saying that an ERROR in the startup process is
> better than a FATAL, even though the effect is the same.
We've already been using FATAL all over the recovery code. We should
s/FATAL/ERROR/g there (at least readRecoveryCommandFile)?
> On the substantive issue, I don't think we have any consensus that
> forbidding this combination of parameters is the right thing to do
> anyway. Both Simon and I voted against that, and Tom's point has to
> do only with style. Similarly, I voted for flipping the default for
> pause_at_recovery_target to off, rather than on, but no one else has
> bought into that suggestion either. Unless we get some more votes in
> favor of doing one of those things, I think we should focus on the
> actual must-fix issue here, which is properly documenting the way it
> works now (i.e. adding the parameter to recovery.conf.sample with
> appropriate documentation of the current behavior).
I agree to flip the default to false, whether we forbid that combination
of settings.
> One thing I'm not quite clear on is what happens if we reach the
> recovery target before we reach consistency. i.e. create restore
> point, flush xlog, abnormal shutdown, try to recover to named restore
> point. Is there any possibility that we can end up paused before Hot
> Standby has actually started up. Because that would be fairly useless
> and annoying.
Good catch! In that case, the same situation as (3) would happen.
I think that recovery should ignore pause_at_recovery_target until
it reaches consistent point. If we do so, when recovery target is
ahead of consistent point, recovery just ends in inconsistent point
and throws FATAL error.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-03-18 05:45:44 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-17 19:46:57 | pgsql: Minor fixes for high availability documentation. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-03-18 05:45:44 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. |
Previous Message | YAMAMOTO Takashi | 2011-03-18 02:26:21 | Re: SSI bug? |